(Richard S. Cattane PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAM: I have written to: R. K. Pullem, H.C. Crotty,
 E.L. MoserJr., V.F. Maimone, Fred Wurpel,Jr.,
 L.W. Burks.

 My claim is, I believe that I should still have my foreman rights on the former Whg. Div. which includes territory from Lorain, Ohio to Kenova, W.Va.

 OPINION OF BOARD: By Agreement dated August 7,. 1975 with the, repre
 sentative organization, Carrier made extensive
 rearrangements of its seniority districts as they were applicable to
 its employes of the Maintenance of Way Department. One of the provisions
 of this August 7, 1975 Agreement involved the right of choice of certain
 affected employes to (1) retain their seniority in the district where
 found at the time of the Agreement, or (2) to transfer their Maintenance
 of Way Department seniority to one of the newly arranged seniority
 districts. Claimant in this case elected on September 27, 1975 to
 retain his seniority on the Monongah seniority district.

 Subsequently, on or about December 8, 1975, claimant indicated a desire to displace an employe in the foreman's class who was working in a position of the former Monongah Division which was transferred by the terms of the August 7, 1975 Agreement to the Akron Division. Claimant was denied the right to exercise seniority in the foreman's class because he had elected to retain his M of II seniority on the Monongah Division. Claimant appealed this decision to and including Carrier's highest appeals officer who denied his claim by letter dated January 23, 1976. ,

 Claimant's Notice of Intention to this Board is dated May 9, 1977.

 It is apparent from the record that the instant claim was not filed with this Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board within the nine (9) month period following decision of Carrier's highest appeals officer as required by the applicable Rules Agreement. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to handle this claim.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 ' parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 That the Carrier and the Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board lacks jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein, and

        That the claim be dismissed.


                    A W A R' D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~~ ~y',tiP~ .r;`.
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of ?-by 197$.